Saturday, February 28, 2009

The superheroes I always found hard to keep track of were the ones who kept relaunching themselves. I mean, Batman's been Batman for 70 years and Spider-Man's been Spider-Man for the best part of 50. But I'm thinking of chaps like Ant-Man. Very small, as one might expect. Then he became Giant-Man. Then he became Yellowjacket (his girlfriend was the Wasp). Then he became Goliath. I've lost track of him since then. But, thanks to my usual 20-second exhaustive research, I see he was relaunched only a month ago, this time as the Wasp. Hang on, I thought the Wasp was his chick? Has he had a sex change? Hey, why not? For a while he was both Giant-Man and Yellowjacket, playing a kind of schizoid double hero with each superpower emphasizing a different side of his identity.

Anyway, that's how I feel about the endlessly morphing supergovernment hero battling the planet-swallowing economic crisis. Back in September, we were told to put our faith in Bailoutman. Then in January, Bailoutman went to his tailor, had the long underwear redesigned and relaunched himself as Mister Stimulus. A few weeks later the Obama crowd noticed that "stimulus," like "bailout," had become a cheap punch line and decided the approved term was "recovery." So Captain Recovery swung into action.

In fairness to Ant-Man, he got very small, and then he got big, and then he got small again, and then he got super-big, and for a while he was both small and big, in a superheroically bipartisan way. But Bailoutman started out as a huge staggering behemoth, and has inflated from there. Once upon a time he was a meek mild-mannered trillionaire, but a mere five months later he was a meek mild-mannered multitrillionaire.

If you find it hard to keep track of all these evolutions, the president in his address to Congress finally spilled the beans and unveiled our new hero in his final form: the Incredible Bulk, Statezilla, Governmentuan, a colossus bestriding the land like a, er, colossus. What superpowers does he have? All of them! He can save the economy, he can reform health care, he can prevent foreclosures, he can federalize day care, he can cap the salary of his archenemies the sinister Fat Cats who "pad their paychecks and buy fancy drapes." No longer will the citizenry cower in fear of fancy drapes: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! With one solar panel on the roof of his underground headquarters, Governmentuan can transform the American energy sector and power his amazing Governmentmobile, the new environmentally friendly supercar that soon we'll all be driving because we'll be given government car loans to buy the government cars! He'll have hundreds of thousands of boy sidekicks, none of whom will ever be allowed to drop out of high school because (in the words of his famous catchphrase) "that's no longer an option!" "Gee, thanks, Governmentuan!" says Diplomaboy the Boy Wonder, as he goes off to college to study Gender As A Social Construct until he's 34.

And our hero can do this all without raising taxes on any family earning over $250,000!

Look – up in the sky: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a sudden eclipse plunging you and three adjoining states into total darkness? No, it's the Incredible Bulk flailing through the air, fighting for truth, justice and the American way. Well, actually, it's more like the European way. But Americans will get used to it after a while.

Of course, when Barack Obama is accused of creating his Six-Trillion-Dollar Man "because I believe in bigger government" he denies it: "I don't," he says flatly. This is like Clark Kent telling Lois Lane he's not Superman: They just look a bit similar when he removes his glasses. Likewise any connection between Obama and a Big Government behemoth swallowing everything in sight is entirely coincidental.

Do you ever go back to the first issue of this comic book and try to figure out what the plot's all about? Wasn't it something to do with subprime mortgages and two strange creatures called Fannie and Freddie? And then it became something to do with saving banks, wasn't that it? And somewhere along the way the Big Three automakers got involved? And now it's about everything. Obama is going to do everything. So he needs to be able to spend everything. Only we don't call it "spending" anymore. Everything government "spends" is now deemed an "investment." Government will "invest" in "more efficient cars," it will "invest" in day care, it will "invest" in a new Federal Regulatory Agency of Fancy Drapes and Window Treatments. It will "invest" in an impact study group that will study the impact of recalling every edition of Webster's and pasting it in a little Post-It note on the page defining "spend" saying "obsolete – see 'invest.'"

If you're feeling a sudden urge to "invest" in a gallon of tequila and a couple of hookers and wake up with an almighty hangover and no pants in a rusting dumpster on a bit of abandoned scrub round the back of the freight yards, it may be because you're one of that dwindling band of Americans foolish enough to pursue his living in what we used to call "the private sector." You were never exactly Giant-Man, more like Average-Sized Man. But you have a vague sense that you're gonna be a lot closer to Ant-Man by the time all this is through. Noting the president's assurance that the 250-grand-and-under crowd won't pay "a single dime" more in taxes, The Wall Street Journal calculated that if you took every single dime – that's 100 percent – of the over-250K crowd, it barely begins to pay for this program, even before half of them flee the country. The $4 trillion Congress is planning on spending next year (2010) could just about be covered if you took every single dime of the taxable income of every American earning over $75,000.

But it doesn't matter. Because Big Government is the ultimate hero, and the private sector is merely a supporting role. Last week, the president redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state, in ways that make America closer to Europe. If you've still got the Webster's to hand, "closer to Europe" is a sociopolitical colloquialism meaning "much worse."

Is the new all-powerful Statezilla vulnerable to anything? Unfortunately, yes. He loses all his superpowers when he comes into contact with something called Reality. But happily Reality is nowhere in sight. There are believed to be some small surviving shards somewhere on the planet – maybe on an uninhabited atoll somewhere in the Pacific – but that's just a rumor, and Barack Obama isn't planning on running into Reality any time soon.

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Legislative bodies in two states voted this month to define the beginning of human life – and human rights – at conception.

On Feb. 17, North Dakota's House of Representatives voted 51-41 to approve a bill that declares "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" – even one not yet born – is a person protected by rights under the state's constitution.

Yesterday, the Montana Senate voted 26-24 to approve S.B. 406, a constitutional Personhood Amendment that states, "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. ... Person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning or condition of dependency."

Both bills, which have major implications for abortion should the states grant unborn babies the full status of "persons" under the law, now await approval by their respective opposite legislative houses: the North Dakota Senate and the Montana House of Representatives.

Should S.B. 406 pass in Montana's Legislature, it would then be sent to the voters of the state, who with a simple majority could make it part of the state's constitution.

Keith Mason is founder of PersonhoodUSA, a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish legal protection of rights for every pre-born child.

"This is groundbreaking stuff for us in the pro-life movement," said Mason, praising the Montana Senate's vote as "a giant step forward in historic efforts to ensure the rights and protection of every individual."

The personhood approach within the pro-life movement was sparked by a statement in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that opened the doors for legal abortion in the U.S.

In Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote, "[If the] suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

Advocates of personhood legislation aim to follow Blackmun's reasoning by legally establishing that an unborn child is a full "person," therefore guaranteeing the baby's right to life.

"The language, in fact – basically in laymen's terms – just says that all humans are people," says Mason.

State Rep. Dan Ruby, the North Dakota Republican who sponsored his state's bill, told the Bismarck Tribune, "I think North Dakota will be on the map to be the first state in recent years to mount a legitimate challenge to Roe v. Wade."

Similar efforts to establish personhood of pre-born babies have been attempted or are underway in other states, including Mississippi, Oregon, Alabama, Maryland, South Carolina and Colorado, where a personhood amendment was soundly defeated in November.

According to a PersonhoodUSA statement, however, "The race is on between Montana and North Dakota for the first personhood legislation in our nation's history, as Montana's Personhood Amendment continues on to its House of Representatives, and North Dakota's personhood legislation continues on to its Senate."

Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, whose jurisdiction includes North and South Dakota, doesn't see her neighbor state as winning the race.

"[North Dakota's] H.B. 1572 is dangerous, far-reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care," Stoesz told the Washington Times. "This bill is not representative of the majority of North Dakotans; it is merely another attempt by a narrow minority fixated on an agenda that most Americans simply don't support."

Mason, however, isn't dissuaded by threats of defeat in his organization's novel approach to combating abortion.

"If you look at pro-life victories like partial birth, we didn't win the first time around," Mason told the Times. "Pro-abortion activists have changed some of their tactics, which means we need to change ours."

________________________________

WorldNetDaily MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATHLawmakers declare fetuses to be people, tooStates vote on measures that extend full 'personhood' rights to pre-bornPosted: February 28, 200912:30 am Eastern

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

One of the prominent and rising archbishops in the Catholic Church is warning against a "spirit of adulation" towards President Obama, who was portrayed repeatedly during his campaign with messianic images.

WorldNetDaily reported during the campaign on a website called Obamamessiah which still holds images portraying the president in a "transfiguration" pose, with various haloes around his head, and the cover of a book, "Barack Obama, Son of Promise, Child of Hope."

But in a message at St. Basil's Church in Torontorecently, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput warned against following blindly.

"President Obama is a man of intelligence and some remarkable gifts. He has a great ability to inspire. … But whatever his strengths, there's no way to reinvent his record on abortion and related issues with rosy marketing about unity, hope and change," Chaput said.

"Of course, that can change. Some things really do change when a person reaches the White House. Power ennobles some men. It diminishes others. Bad policy ideas can be improved. Good policy ideas can find a way to flourish. But as Catholics, we at least need to be honest with ourselves and each other about the political facts we start with," he said.

"Unfortunately when it comes to the current administration that will be very hard for Catholics in the United States, and here's why. A spirit of adulation bordering on servility already exists among some of the same Democratic-friendly Catholic writers, scholars, editors and activists who once accused prolifers of being too cozy with Republicans. It turns out that Caesar is an equal opportunity employer," he warned.

In just the issue of abortion, Obama already has started keeping campaign promises by restoring taxpayer funding for an international program supporting abortion and launching a plan to require physicians to provide various abortion advice and services – no matter how it violates their beliefs.

Chaput said while people "owe civil authority our respect and appropriate obedience," he said, "Caesar is not God."

"Only God is God, and the state is subordinate and accountable to God for its treatment of human persons, all of whom were created by God. Our job as believers is to figure out what things belong to Caesar, and what things belong to God – and then put those things in right order in our own lives, and in our relations with others," he said in comments were posted on the website of the Denver archdiocese.

He said the religious have a responsibility to be politically engaged.

"Why? Because politics is the exercise of power, and the use of power always has moral content and human consequences," he said. "As Christians, we can't claim to love God and then ignore the needs of our neighbors. Loving God is like loving a spouse. A husband may tell his wife that he loves her, and of course that's very beautiful. But she'll still want to see the proof in his actions."

Chaput, who has written a book on his views, "Render Unto Caesar," noted that even before Obama was elected, he considered the now-president "the most committed 'abortion-rights' presidential candidate … since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973."

He said Obama's campaign "removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing."

The result, he said, is that members of the church "owe no leader any submission or cooperation in the pursuit of grave evil."

"In fact, we have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions," he said. "Second, in democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs. It's worth recalling that despite two ugly wars, an unpopular Republican president, a fractured Republican party, the support of most of the American news media and massively out-spending his opponent, our new president actually trailed in the election polls the week before the economic meltdown."

"Americans, including many Catholics, elected a gifted man to fix an economic crisis. That's the mandate. They gave nobody a mandate to retool American culture on the issues of marriage and the family, sexuality, bioethics, religion in public life and abortion," the archbishop said.

He blasted anyone who would blend Catholicism with support for abortion.

"We can't talk piously about programs to reduce the abortion body count without also working vigorously to change the laws that make the killing possible. If we're Catholic, then we believe in the sanctity of developing human life. And if we don't really believe in the humanity of the unborn child from the moment life begins, then we should stop lying to ourselves and others, and even to God, by claiming we're something we're not," he said.

"Every new election cycle I hear from unhappy, self-described Catholics who complain that abortion is too much of a litmus test. But isn't that exactly what it should be? One of the defining things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their respect for human life; and specifically their rejection of abortion and infanticide," he said.

The move to have an "open mind" about various issues on which the Bible speaks is seriously misplaced, too, he insisted.

"We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty – these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil," he said.

Chaput also took Obama's campaign slogan of "hope" down a peg.

"Anyone who hasn't noticed the despair in the world should probably go back to sleep. The word 'hope' on a campaign poster may give us a little thrill of righteousness, but the world will still be a wreck when the drug wears off. We can only attain hope through truth," he said. "And what that means is this: From the moment Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth and the life,' the most important political statement anyone can make is 'Jesus Christ is Lord.'"

One participant on the diocese website's forum responded, "I am not Catholic but am thrilled that this church is blasting the political dogma that is trying to become the standard for right and wrong. We must not be sheep and follow this pied piper (Obama) blindly. We must search our soul prayerfully for Gods answers not rely on the arm of flesh."

Another said, "All I need comment is the ninny commentator on MSNBC who 'gets a feeling up his leg when Obama speaks.' Or the Black woman who said on local TV that now that Obama has been elected president, I will not have to pay for gasoline anymore and I won't have to pay my mortgage. This is sick."

"You still remember Jim Jones? He was a gifted very charismatic preacher and what happen[ed] to his followers?" added another.

WND recently reported when Obama was picked ahead of Jesus as a "hero" to respondents in an online Harris poll and also when Nation of Islam radical Louis Farrakhan said regarding Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking."

CNN, also, likened Obama's inauguration in Washington to the "hajj," the once-a-lifetime trip faithful Muslims make to their holy city of Mecca.

_______________________

Warning issued over 'spirit of adulation' of presidentArchbishop: 'In democracies, we elect public servants, not messiahs'Posted: February 28, 200912:25 am Eastern

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Good afternoon, Shannon. I received your request for a letter of recommendation to UNC School of Law. I also received your resume, your transcripts, and your LSAT results. Based upon what I read I have written you two letters of recommendation. The first letter is for North Carolina Central School of Law, which I believe would be a better choice given that your grades and test scores are good but less than stellar. The full text of the letter follows:

To Whom It May Concern:

As a professor at UNC-Wilmington, I have had the pleasure of knowing Shannon Jones for the last four years. She has been a good student and an asset to our program. I would like to take this opportunity to recommend Shannon to N.C. Central School of Law.

I feel confident that Shannon will continue to do well in her studies. She is a dedicated student and thus far her grades have been strong. She has a 3.1 overall GPA. In class, she has proven to be a leader who is able to successfully develop ideas and presentations and to implement them.

Shannon has also assisted us in our main office. She has successfully demonstrated leadership ability by speaking with prospective students. Her advice has been a great help to students, some of whom have taken time to share their comments with me. Many noted her pleasant and encouraging attitude.

It is for these reasons that I offer recommendations for Shannon without reservation. Her drive and abilities will truly be an asset to your law school. If you have any questions regarding this recommendation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mike AdamsAssociate ProfessorUNC-Wilmington

As you can see, I wrote this letter without any reference to your status as a black female. Instead, I relied on your legitimate qualifications as a potential law student. But I also wrote a second letter based upon the sliding scale that is used for minorities (especially double minorities) in the law school admissions process. The full text of the second letter follows:

To Whom It May Concern:

As a professor at UNC-Wilmington, I have had the pleasure of knowing Shannon Jones for the last four years. She has been a good student and an asset to our program. I would like to take this opportunity to offer a minority recommendation for Shannon’s consideration by the admissions committee at UNC School of Law.

I feel confident that Shannon would do better in her studies were she to attend another law school. However, I am confident that Shannon will be given special consideration at UNC School of Law. Even if she lands near the bottom of the class, she will be guaranteed a good summer job by the progressives working in the placement office. She is a dedicated student and thus far her grades have been strong - although they are about half a grade point below the average expected of white male applicants. Her LSAT score of 156 is also well below that expected of white males. But her status as a black female should more than make up the difference.

Shannon has also assisted us in our main office. She has successfully demonstrated leadership ability by speaking with prospective students. Her advice has been a great help to students, some of whom have taken time to share their comments with me. Many noted her pleasant and encouraging attitude. This will undoubtedly help her to console other struggling minority students many of whom suffer greatly from the double standard operating at the law school.

It is for these reasons that I offer recommendations for Shannon without any reservations aside from the fact that she is not actually qualified, which I understand to be irrelevant in this case. Her demographic characteristics will truly be an asset to your law school’s mission as you have defined it. If you have any questions regarding this recommendation, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Mike Adams Associate Professor UNC-Wilmington

As you may have guessed, Shannon, I only intend to send one of these letters of recommendation. The one you choose will reveal whether you wish to be judged by the content of your character or the color of your skin. It will also say a lot about your character.

___________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Funny Political and Editorial Cartoons and Funnies

President Obama's speech to Congress has been properly called Rooseveltian -- active, upbeat and unadorned. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Obama is a great explainer -- simple without being simplistic. And the very act of effective explanation is reassuring. Clear exposition implies intellectual mastery, which implies competence, which builds confidence.

For Roosevelt, such confidence was not just a style but also a creed. It is a consistent theme of liberal economics since the New Deal that rhetoric is a tool of policy -- that the soothing of fear and doubt is essential to restoring the normal function of credit and entrepreneurship. As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "By affirming solemnly that prosperity will continue, it is believed, one can help insure that prosperity will in fact continue. Especially among businessmen the faith in the efficiency of such incantation is very great."

But national morale was not economically decisive in defeating the Great Depression (though it came in handy defeating Hitler). Economic historian Amity Shlaes reminds us, "Roosevelt did famously well by one measure, the political poll. He flunked by two other meters that we today know are critically important: the unemployment rate and the Dow Jones industrial average."

And the incantation of confidence is not likely to be decisive in the current economy. Markets, investors, businessmen and entrepreneurs are generally immune to tone and charm. They seek reassurance on three issues of substance: the credibility of the credit system, the eventual return of economic growth and a serious approach to debt.

Obama was strongest when it came to rescuing the banking system, promising to "act with the full force of the federal government" and to do "whatever proves necessary" to assure the flow of lending. This was an assertion of executive power in a time of crisis that Roosevelt would have understood and appreciated. The bank bailout is radical, involving the socialization of private-sector losses and a government plan to "force the necessary adjustments," "clean up their balance sheets" and ensure "continuity." But the alternatives to executive power in this case seem dismal. As an economic pragmatist, I was reassured.

On the issue of economic growth, Obama was less compelling. He talked of the need to "jump-start job creation" through public spending, admitting that "there are some in this chamber and watching at home who are skeptical of whether this plan will work." He answered those concerns by saying that "wasteful spending" would be met with "unprecedented oversight." But this is the old debater's trick of responding to an opponent's weakest objection.

The source of skepticism for many Americans is not the prospect of government waste but Obama's theory of job creation. It sounds somehow passe to assert it, but most jobs are created by private capital in the private sector, often by small businesses. And they got little policy attention in Obama's speech. An example Obama used -- retaining police officers -- is a worthy cause, but hardly typical of American job-creation. A small-business owner heard nothing about his daily struggles with litigation or regulation.

There is an element of psychology -- of confidence -- in taking the risks of entrepreneurship and small-business expansion. It is difficult to imagine how that confidence is built by being ignored.

Obama was even less credible on the issue of debt. Most Americans seem to accept the need for the temporary deficit spike to provide a jolt to the economy. But Obama's pledges to go "line by line through the federal budget" and to remove "waste, fraud and abuse" were the most tired portions of his energetic speech -- and simply not credible with Speaker Nancy Pelosi in vivid green over his left shoulder.

On long-term debt -- the crisis of unsustainable entitlements in an aging society -- Obama was timid. These massive, future obligations raise the prospect of higher interest rates and inflation, and threaten to crowd out spending on a variety of national and humanitarian goals. Many would eagerly accept large short-term deficits in exchange for a grand bargain to get entitlement spending under control. There are innovative ideas being floated on Capitol Hill, such as the SAFE Commission, which would recommend entitlement reforms and present those proposals to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Obama did not choose to spend his political capital on confronting the entitlement crisis -- which is understandable, but hardly courageous.

Obama's rhetoric this week was reassuring. But on the economy, many of us are only partially reassured.

by Michael GersonThe Washington PostFriday, 27 February 09

______________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Not a great speech, but extremely consequential. If Barack Obama succeeds, his joint address to Congress will be seen as historic -- indeed as the foundational document of Obamaism. As it stands, it constitutes the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.

The first part of the speech, justifying his economic stabilization efforts, was mere housekeeping. The economic crisis is to Obama a technocratic puzzle that needs to be solved because otherwise he loses all popular support.

Unlike most presidents, however, he doesn't covet popular support for its own sake. Some men become president to be someone, others to do something. This is what separates, say, a Ronald Reagan from a Bill Clinton. Obama, who once noted that Reagan altered the trajectory of America as Clinton had not, sees himself a Reagan.

Reagan came to office to do something: shrink government, lower taxes, rebuild American defenses. Obama made clear Tuesday night that he intends to be equally transformative. His three goals: universal health care, universal education, and a new green energy economy highly funded and regulated by government.

(1) Obama wants to be to universal health care what Lyndon Johnson was to Medicare. Obama has publicly abandoned his once-stated preference for a single-payer system as in Canada and Britain. But that is for practical reasons. In America, you can't get there from here directly.

Instead, Obama will create the middle step that will lead ultimately and inevitably to single-payer. The way to do it is to establish a reformed system that retains a private health-insurance sector but offers a new government-run plan (based on benefits open to members of Congress) so relatively attractive that people voluntarily move out of the private sector, thereby starving it. The ultimate result is a system of fully socialized medicine. This will likely not happen until long after Obama leaves office. But he will be rightly recognized as its father.

(2) Beyond cradle-to-grave health care, Obama wants cradle-to-cubicle education. He wants far more government grants, tax credits and other financial guarantees for college education -- another way station to another universal federal entitlement. He lauded the country for establishing free high school education during the Industrial Revolution; he wants to put us on the road to doing the same for college during the Information Age.

(3) Obama wants to be to green energy what John Kennedy was to the moon shot, its visionary and creator. It starts with the establishment of a government-guided, government-funded green energy sector into which the administration will pour billions of dollars from the stimulus package and billions more from budgets to come.

But just picking winners and losers is hardly sufficient for a president who sees himself as world-historical. Hence the carbon cap-and-trade system he proposed Tuesday night that will massively restructure American industry and create a highly regulated energy sector.

These revolutions in health care, education and energy are not just abstract hopes. They have already taken life in Obama's massive $787 billion stimulus package, a huge expansion of social spending constituting a down payment on Obama's plan for remaking the American social contract.

Obama sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity. He has said so openly. And now we know what opportunity he wants to seize. Just as the Depression created the political and psychological conditions for Franklin Roosevelt's transformation of America from laissez-faireism to the beginnings of the welfare state, the current crisis gives Obama the political space to move the still (relatively) modest American welfare state toward European-style social democracy.

In the European Union, government spending has declined slightly, from 48 percent to 47 percent of GDP during the last 10 years. In the U.S., it has shot up from 34 percent to 40 percent. Part of this explosive growth in U.S. government spending reflects the emergency private-sector interventions of a Republican administration. But the clear intent was to make the massive intrusion into the private sector temporary and to retreat as quickly as possible. Obama has radically different ambitions.

The spread between Europe and America in government-controlled GDP has already shrunk from 14 percent to 7 percent. Two terms of Obamaism and the difference will be zero.

Conservatives take a dim view of the regulation-bound, economically sclerotic, socially stagnant, nanny state that is the European Union. Nonetheless, Obama is ascendant and has the personal mandate to take the country where he wishes. He has laid out boldly the Brussels-bound path he wants to take.

Let the debate begin.

by Charles KrauthammerTHE WASHINGTON POSTFriday, 27 February 09

________________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Republicans in Washington think they may have found their man to pick up a Senate seat in Connecticut in 2010: Larry Kudlow, the former Reagan budget advisor, Wall Street economist and now CNBC TV news anchor. The Internet is abuzz with the chatter of a Kudlow for Senate boomlet, which has even hit the Drudge Report.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Kudlow confirmed to me that he did sit down for dinner with Senate Republican Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn "to hear him out on the idea."

Under normal circumstances, incumbent Democrat Chris Dodd would be as safe as any incumbent given how blue a state Connecticut is. But Mr. Dodd is now showing up in polls as highly vulnerable thanks to his sweetheart loan deal from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. In 2003 Mr. Dodd received two "Friends of Angelo" loans with below-market interest rates, which saved the Dodd family an estimated $30,000 on the life of the mortgages.Mr. Dodd has promised for months to reveal the loan documents, but last month it became clear the Connecticut Senator is trying to stall and whitewash the deal so he can get through next year's election. Pollsters are finding that voters are enraged by Mr. Dodd's cover-up.

Senate Republican strategists tell me that the likely theme of a campaign against Mr. Dodd is to label him "the politician most responsible for the financial meltdown." As Senate Banking Committee chairman, Mr. Dodd blocked Bush Administration efforts to crack down on excessive risk at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose mortgage securitization process hugely benefited Countrywide's subprime loan schemes.

Mr. Kudlow, who has long had a home in Connecticut, would seem to be the ideal candidate to oust Senator Dodd. Mr. Kudlow would come to the race with very high name-recognition, the capability to raise lots of money in a hurry, the rare communications skills to sell a pro-growth Ronald Reagan message, and a winning charisma and style (he used to do Cadillac commercials). "I'm first and foremost an old-style Reaganite," Mr. Kudlow tells me.

If he ran, he would be the best spokesman in Congress for supply side economics since Jack Kemp left the House 20 years ago. Right now I would guess that the odds are against his jumping into the race, but a clear voice for economic growth and lower taxes is exactly what is badly needed in the Senate today.

by Stephen Moore

The Wall Street Journal

Political Diary Online

Friday, 27 February 09

________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

THIS PHOTO SHOWS JANE FONDADURING HER VISIT TO HANOI IN 1968INSPECTING AN ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNWHICH SHOT DOWN AMERICAN AVIATORS

She really is a traitor

A TRAITOR WHO IS ABOUT TO BE HONORED

This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the ’100 Women of the Century.'

BY BARBRA WALTERS

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot.

The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the ' Hanoi Hilton.'

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American 'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane treatment' he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away. During the subsequent beating , he fell forward on to the camp Commandant 's feet, which sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the 'Hanoi Hilton', the first three of which his family only knew he was 'missing in action'. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation' visit.

They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it , in the palm of his hand.

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?' Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam , and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for ov er 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one year in a cage in Cambodia ; and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam , whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border. At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi , I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her..

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received.... and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as 'humane and lenient.'

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane.. ;

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did an swer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of '100 Years of Great Women.' Lest we forget...' 100 Years of Great Women' should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason, is one of them. Please take the time to forward to as many people as you possibly can. It will eventually end up on her computer and she needs to know that we will never forget.

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Today, Mark, I want to cover three speeches with you – the President’s, Bobby Jindal’s, and Sean Penn’s. Let’s start with your reaction to President Obama speech Tuesday night.

MS: I was devastated, actually. What is horrifying to me is the way he’s become quite expert at genuflecting towards American exceptionalism, and then yoking it to his project of massive statism. In other words, nothing says the American virtues of self-reliance, entrepreneurial energy, and the can-do spirit like joining the vast army of robotic extras demanding more big government from Obama and Washington. I mean, this is a horrifying…he does it, the tone is expert, but the approval ratings are a lagging indicator right now. The fact is the foreign policy guys around the world and the investor class in the Dow Jones right here at home understand where this is heading.

HH: Do you think it can be stopped, this massive, massive expansion of government that he outlined last night, whether or not people understood what he was outlining?

MS: Well, I think he’s certainly got the votes to do it, and it’s clear that if anything, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and the Congressional barons want this stuff even more. In part, they want it because health care, and I think it’s clear that as Michael Barone said, that he seems himself as the LBJ of health care. Health care is going to be his Great Society. Health care to me fundamentally transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to one of junky and pusher. And I think you cross a line from which it’s very hard to return. By the way, all these comparisons, you know, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, the New Deal, I think this is all just kind of little nickel and dime comparisons. I think the project is actually far more transformative than that.

HH: I’ve been trying this week to educate people on something called the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act, which was passed last August, went into effect on February the 10th, and launched a bunch of lawsuits yesterday. It’s devastating retailers and manufacturers who make products for children, Mark Steyn, and they had no idea what they were doing. And I’m trying to argue, I’ll argue with E.J. Dionne a little bit later, if they mess up something that simple, and launch a thousand unintended consequences…

MS: Right.

HH: What will our health care system be like? These people are not competent to do these things.

MS: Exactly. I mean, what I find so odd is that people say oh, the markets failed. The markets failed. You crazy guy thinking the market can fix this, we’re somehow meant to think, and in fact, we’re meant to excuse his every tax infraction on this basis, that Tim Geithner somehow is the only man who can crack the code of the global economy. He’s the only guy on the planet with the expertise to be able to arrange this kind of Rubik’s cube of the global economy so that every side is facing in the right direction and make it work. You’re right. The legislation of the United States Congress is appallingly drafted. It’s unrepublican. These people elected to Congress at the very minimum, especially when you consider they’ve all got staffs bigger than the average, bigger than the retinue of the average Gulf emir, I mean these guys owe it to us, at the very minimum, to at least read this legislation. That thing you mentioned just a moment ago, that kids safety thing…

HH: Yes.

MS: …has made every children’s book printed before 1985 apparently a lethal weapon.

HH: Yes.

MS: It’s illegal, if I happen to have a 1982 edition of Tom Sawyer lying around, it’s illegal for me to sell that at my local rummage sale, because it’ll kill the kid who reads it. This is rubbish. And we need…none of this stuff is needed, all of it gets in the way of the dynamic and productive part of the American economy.

HH: You know, Mark, it sideswiped the entire all-terrain vehicle industry, destroying a huge market segment where they would sell these vehicles to 12 and under. They can’t do it now because of lead in the machines. And it was not intended to do that.

MS: Yes, and…

HH: It just did it.

MS: And let me tell you something. I’m not going to pay any attention to that. In my corner of New Hampshire, every 12 year old boy loves taking an ATV up riding it around up in the hills. And the idea that the lead in it is going to cause that kid to keel over is preposterous. And this is government by insanity, because the minute you create a bureaucracy, that bureaucracy is there forever. That law can never be overturned.

HH: Yes.

MS: And this is taking us into very dangerous territory.

HH: Oh, I’ll tell you, if they bring the same efficiency to the health care reform as they did to the CPSIA, we’re doomed. We’ll all be dead. Let me ask you about Bobby Jindal. I don’t think he did badly last night, but then again, I was listening for substance. What do you think?

MS: Well, I think this comes back to one of the issues we were talking about last week. You know, he basically, the criticism made of him is that it was a relatively lackluster presentation. And I think it’s fair to say he’s not Mr. Teleprompter. And that’s often the case. If you’re a state politician, generally speaking, you don’t have a lot of occasion to use a teleprompter. And so when you do, it’s not something you’re necessarily familiar with. But the other criticism was that essentially his view of the situation is outmoded. That was the hammering he took from a lot of the so-called centrist commentators, that he needs to get with the program, that he’d be much better off conceding half of the Obama stuff, and trying to rein him in on some of the wackier, fringier stuff. And I don’t think that’s going to cut it. I think there’s a level of disgust out there. When you look, for example, there’s a small majority in the last poll, I think it was something like 54% of the American people want no bailout for anything, nothing, nada, zip, that actually, there’s quite a growing movement out there that does want to return to some basic core economic principles. And in that sense, by not offering any concession to the Obamafication of the economy, he may have done himself some favors.

HH: Now let’s turn to Sean Penn. Let’s play a little bit of this to remind people, cut number one.

Sean Penn: You Commie, homo-loving sons of guns…

HH: Mark Steyn, what’d you make of that opening from Sean Penn?

MS: Well, you know something? We congratulate, Hollywood congratulates itself on its courage. It’s taken it years, it took fifteen years before they made a film about AIDS with Tom Hanks going to, in Philadelphia, going to, with a stick-on lesion or two, going to the tamest ever gay party that’s ever been filmed. Now, they’re congratulating themselves for filming a thirty year old story [the murder of Harvey Milk]. Hollywood congratulates itself on its courage all the time. Generally, it gets to these issues very late. That’s why George Clooney thinks he’s a brave man for making a film about McCarthyism in the year 2007. I mean, this is Hollywood courage. Once the issue’s cut and dried, then they’ll go to it.

HH: I want to get to one point, I hope it’s early, play a little bit more of the Sean Penn thing.

Sean Penn: I did not expect this, but…and I want it to be very clear that I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me often.

HH: Stop right there. The self-referential nature of these things, Mark Steyn, but I don’t think I can get to it in time, so I’ll just put it out there. At one point, he crows, he’s happy that we have finally elected an elegant president.

MS: (laughing)

HH: And I thought to myself, this is truly the bottoming out of the culture when someone gets up and applauds a president on the basis of their elegance.

MS: Well you know, Chester Arthur was the first president to have a valet in the White House. And I think that’s where it all started to go to hell.

HH: (laughing)

MS: So I’m willing to cut Obama a little bit of slack on the elegance issue.

HH: Now Mark Steyn, in terms of where we are generally, I’m still an optimist. I think the economy’s going to turn around rather quickly. I believe a lot of this project that you referred to is going to stall out when people realize what we’re talking about turning over to federal bureaucrats and to government programs, and the price tag. Where is your optimism meter here? I think we’re going to have a big swing in 2010, because people are not going to buy this. They never have.

MS: Well, I’d like to be with you on that. I think the Dow has a long way to go, though. You know, I remember, it’s only a couple of weeks ago, people were talking about the Dow bottoming out at 8000. Now, they’re talking about 6000, and it’s not inconceivable it could be at 5000. and basically, I think that if Obama and Barney Frank and Co. go further down the path they discussed last night, we have only the certainty of worse. I mean, this is his thing. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. There’s nothing very FDR about that.

HH: And so Mark Steyn, though, I’m talking about the fact that they’ll run into obstacles not yet evident, including in their own party as the blue dog Democrats realize they’re going to get wiped out, and that therefore they’re going to be obliged to abandon this project at least in large part. There just isn’t enough money in the world or competence.

MS: I hope so, but you know what the Republican Party needs at the moment is kind of principled leadership that can tap into what I think is a swelling public dissatisfaction. And the problem is that too many Republicans listen to the New York Times and the Washington Post telling them they have to reach across the aisle and do the Susan Collins thing.

HH: Mark Steyn, always a pleasure.

End of interview.

The Hugh Hewitt Show Blog is part of Townhall.com________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.

Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.

The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.

My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.

After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.

By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.

I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.

These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.

Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.

But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”

Mike S. Adams was born in Columbus, Mississippi on October 30, 1964. While a student at Clear Lake High School in Houston, TX, his team won the state 5A soccer championship. He graduated from C.L.H.S. in 1983 with a 1.8 GPA. He was ranked 734 among a class of 740, largely as a result of flunking English all four years of high school. After obtaining an Associate’s degree in psychology from San Jacinto College, he moved on to Mississippi State University where he joined the Sigma Chi Fraternity. While living in the fraternity house, his GPA rose to 3.4, allowing him to finish his B.A., and then to pursue a Master’s in Psychology. In 1990, he turned down a chance to pursue a PhD in psychology from the University of Georgia, opting instead to remain at Mississippi State to study Sociology/Criminology. This decision was made entirely on the basis of his reluctance to quit his night job as member of a musical duo. Playing music in bars and at fraternity parties and weddings financed his education. He also played for free beer.

Upon getting his doctorate in 1993, Adams, then an atheist and a Democrat, was hired by UNC-Wilmington to teach in the criminal justice program. A few years later, Adams abandoned his atheism and also became a Republican. He also nearly abandoned teaching when he took a one-year leave of absence to study law at UNC-Chapel Hill in 1998. After returning to teach at UNC-Wilmington, Adams won the Faculty Member of the Year award (issued by the Office of the Dean of Students) for the second time in 2000.

After his involvement in a well publicized free speech controversy in the wake of the 911 terror attacks, Adams became a vocal critic of the diversity movement in academia. After making appearances on shows like Hannity and Colmes, the O’Reilly Factor, and Scarborough Country, Adams was asked to write a column for Townhall.com.

Today he enjoys the privilege of expressing himself both as a teacher and a writer. He is also an avid hunter and reader of classic literature. He published his first book, Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel, in 2004. His second book, Feminists Say the Darnedest Things, was published in 2008.

____________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

SO WHAT'S a nice conservative like me doing in a newspaper like this (The Boston Globe)?

Wondering, for a start, why so many liberals think of conservatives not so much as people they disagree with, but as people they despise.

Most mainstream conservatives acknowledge that liberals are essentially well-meaning. Misguided, to be sure. And naive? Certainly. And elitist, self-righteous, collectivist know-it-alls, chronically unwilling to learn from their mistakes, clueless when it comes to the workings of the marketplace, always persuaded that the next government program will fix whatever went wrong with the last government program? Yeah. But well-meaning.

It should go without saying that you can mean well and do ill. Those liberal good intentions have helped pave more than a few of the 20th century's roads to hell, from the Evil Empire to the welfare state to the meltdown of the American criminal justice system. Conservatives condemn the demonic results that liberal good intentions have led to, and with gusto. What they don't do, as a rule, is demonize their opponents.

To be conservative, in the eyes of many fervent liberals, is to be by definition a vile human being -- someone to recoil from, not reason with; someone to damn, not to debate.

Personal vignette: It was a roundtable discussion about poverty and social welfare policies in Massachusetts, and I had made some point or other about welfare and illegitimacy. The representative from the prominent, Boston-based foundation spoke up in disagreement.

"People like Mr. Jacoby can say that because they don't care about the poor," she began. "But the rest of us . . ."

They don't care about the poor. Period, end of story. No room for differences of philosophy here. You're a conservative? Then you're morally defective, your views are warped, and would you please get out of the marketplace of ideas before you stink up the joint.

Think of Ted Kennedy's slander of Judge Robert Bork in 1987 ("Bork's America is a land in which . . . blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids . . ."). Or of Boston City Councilor Charles Yancey's foul comparison of his colleague, conservative James Kelly, to a Nazi ("It would be like electing David Duke . . . he has the same politics and rhetoric as David Duke.")

"Liberals go for the jugular," says David Horowitz, the one-time antiwar activist and editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. "With them, it's always about character assassination. If you're conservative, you're either sick or in some way deeply malevolent."

The most flagrant recent example oozed across The New York Times op-ed page last month, when columnist Frank Rich launched a vitriolic personal assault on conservative journalist David Brock, author of a controversial article on Bill Clinton's extramarital adventures.

Brock's "motives are at least as twisted as his facts," wrote Rich. "It's women, not liberals, who really get him going. The slightest sighting of female sexuality whips him into a frenzy of misogynist zeal. All women are the same to Mr. Brock: terrifying, gutter-tongued, sexual omnivores."

Imagine a conservative trying to discredit a liberal by sledgehammering him as an unhinged woman-hater, or none-too-subtly "outing" him as a homosexual. Actually, that's hard to do: The last well-known conservative with a taste for baseless personal invective was named Joe McCarthy.

At the 1984 Democratic National Convention, Tip O'Neill -- the great-hearted, much-mourned late Speaker himself -- voiced his opposition to President Reagan's policies thus: "The evil is in the White House."

The evil. Never would Reagan have used such language to describe O'Neill.

But then, Reagan wasn't a man of the left. He wasn't on a utopian crusade. Like most conservatives, he didn't think the blights of the world could be ended by transforming human nature. And he certainly didn't imagine the only thing blocking that transformation was wrong-thinking people who must be gotten out of the way -- or excommunicated as "evil."

So what's a nice conservative like me doing in a newspaper like this? Why, conserving. Looking to the past to figure out what has succeeded, and trying to apply its wisdom to the conundrums of the present. Acknowledging that there are no guarantees and that life is unfair, but knowing that the best road for the pursuit of happiness is the one marked with the old signposts: Freedom. Responsibility. Virtue. Work.

___________________

Note: Fifteen years ago today -- February 24, 1994 -- my first regular column appeared in the Boston Globe. It ran across the top of the op-ed page under the headline "Welcome to the much-maligned world of the conservative." In it I planted my ideological flag with gusto and, for subscribers to this list, I reprint it ABOVE to mark the occasion.

February 24, 2009

Conservative columnist, liberal paper

by Jeff JacobyThe Boston GlobeFebruary 24, 1994

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

__________________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

THE SIGNING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONWHICH GUARANTEES US FREEDOM OF SPEECH

"Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the 'Fairness Doctrine' without actually calling it such." -The American Spectator, February 16, 2009

One by one, liberals in Congress and in the Obama Administration are scheming for ways to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” as a way to muzzle Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservative voices on talk radio.

And, just in case you were thinking that attempts by liberals to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine” were simply aimed at conservative talk radio... THINK AGAIN.

It's actually much worse than we initially thought!

Now, according to the above report by The American Spectator, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, under the leadership of far-left Congressman Henry Waxman, is talking about imposing Fairness Doctrine-type regulations on all forms of media… including the Internet!

According to the article in The American Spectator:

“Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. … Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."

Could you imagine if your favorite websites were forced to stop reporting the truth about what our government is up to… or if you were only permitted to read, listen to or watch content only after it was pre-approved by Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and a bunch of government bureaucrats?

Think about that for a moment.

What supporters of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” actually want is…

for the media and groups like CFIF to become propaganda arms for the Obama Administration and liberal government policies; or

they just want us all to shut up!

Both of those solutions are not only unacceptable, they are also UNAMERICAN!

Only the moronic could fail to anticipate where this could lead and only the ruthless and unprincipled could rejoice in this betrayal of everything America is supposed to be.

Fortunately, there is hope!

To halt re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine" and these other crazy schemes by the Pelosi Gang and the Obama Administration to curtail free speech, conservatives in Congress have introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (S. 34).

According to Senator Jim DeMint:

"The bill would prevent the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would suppress free speech by requiring the government to monitor political views and decide what constitutes fair political discourse."

… According to the same American Spectator story above, Waxman and the gang want to go even further to ensure they achieve their goals.

“[Acting FCC Chairman] Copps has been a supporter of putting in place policies that would allow the federal government to have greater oversight over the content that TV and radio stations broadcast to the public, and both the FCC and Waxman are looking to licensing and renewal of licensing as a means of enforcing ‘Fairness Doctrine’ type policies without actually using the hot-button term ‘Fairness Doctrine.’"

“One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place 'advisory boards' that would act as watchdogs to ensure 'community needs and opinions' are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff.”

Congressionally mandated advisory boards of community watchdogs to control media content?

Sound familiar?

It should. The Soviet Union used to call them commissars... political officers... politruk!

To put it another way, can you actually envision ACORN-like "advisory boards" acting as "community watchdogs" over Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham... dictating, through the station owners that carry their shows, what they can or cannot say?

And just in case you're thinking that such a scenario sounds a little far-fetched, according to the same Spectator article:

“Also involved in ‘brainstorming’ on [the] ‘Fairness Doctrine’ and online monitoring has been the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, which has published studies pressing for the Fairness Doctrine, as well as the radical MoveOn.org, which has been speaking to committee staff about policies that would allow them to use their five to six million person database to mobilize complaints against radio, TV or online entities they perceive to be limiting free speech or limiting opinion.”

So there you have it. If supporters of these totalitarian regulations get their way, you only will be able to read, watch or listen to content dictated by the likes of MoveOn.org.

It was not too long ago that we only had to fight attempts to silence conservatives on talk radio.

With liberals now in control of both the Executive and Legislation branches of our government, it would appear that “Fairness Doctrine” supporters are saying “Why Stop There?” The sky, to them, is now the limit!

You may or may not have read the recent FoxNews.com report in which an Obama spokesman said that the President is opposed to reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Yeah, right! It was an Obama spokesman who first told us that there was no pork in the nearly $1 trillion "stimulus package" passed by Congress last week.

And, if the recent fight over the so-called "stimulus package" taught us anything it is that the liberals controlling Congress – led by Nancy Pelosi – will stop at nothing to get what they want. Make no mistake: they have made very clear their desire to silence conservative dissent.

And despite the public rhetoric, people in Obama’s Administration appear to be pressing ahead with efforts to re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine.” Sure, maybe they won’t call it the “Fairness Doctrine,” but the result will be the same… or worse!

Even President Obama himself recently said, "YOU CAN'T JUST LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH AND GET THINGS DONE."

Liberals already control the major television networks and newspapers. The thorn in their side is conservative talk radio and the Internet... THEY MUST CONTROL THEM TOO!

Liberal columnist Bill Press recently lamented in a Washington Post column that greedy radio station owners are conspiring to shut down liberal voices on the radio.

Of course, that's an outright falsehood. Conservative talk radio is popular precisely because it is one of the ONLY broadcast mediums today where conservative voices and opinions CAN be heard.

Press doesn't like the fact that conservative talk radio is so popular and states without equivocation:

"And that must change. Not necessarily by bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, but by requiring owners of broadcast licenses to serve the general public. We need government oversight by the FCC of radio station owners..."

But you haven't heard it all. Press goes on to disingenuously say:

"Forget all the right-wing hysteria about liberals trying to 'hush Rush.' What the whole flap over the Fairness Doctrine boils down to is this: Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves – free! – in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license... Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk. Make room for progressive voices on the radio. That's what the American people want. How do you like that, Mr. Hannity?"

Allow me to translate:

The GOVERNMENT OWNS the airwaves and the GOVERNMENT determines what the people want. Don't give me any of that hogwash about liberal talk-radio failing on a national level and don't stand there and tell me that something as arbitrary as ratings are any indication of what the public wants. The American people are too stupid to know what they want. The American people are too stupid to know what is in the public interest. The American people are hysterical right-wing morons and we (liberals) need to tell them what they want to see and hear!

But don't take our word for it. Camille Paglia, a raging leftist academician who, to be totally fair, often exhibits intellectual honesty put it this way:

“Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism. ... let's get real: Liberals have been pathetic flops on national radio... Instead of bleating for paternalistic government intervention, liberals should get their own act together. Radio is a populist medium where liberals come across as snide, superior scolds.”

Press isn't the only one on the left talking about "government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio."

Clearly Waxman, Pelosi and other liberals in Congress are preparing to gang up on free speech and bludgeon it to death with blunt instruments – all in the name of Mom, apple pie, and fairness.

Pardon the pun, but in recent weeks, liberals have instituted a full court press on free speech.

Upon reading Press' column, Senator Tom Harkin could not contain his glee.

Harkin told Press:

“By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post, I took it into my office and said 'there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.’"

Bill Clinton, while on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, recently said:

"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let’s face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”

During that show, Clinton also lambasted the "blatant drumbeat" against the Obama-Pelosi so-called "stimulus bill."

Get it? Liberals are hopping mad because AM radio actually permitted the truth to be told!

Every good leftist knows that if you are going to socialize health-care and nationalize the banking industry and totally transform a country into a Socialist Nation, you MUST control the media!

Liberal Senator Debbie Stabenow recently told Bill Press:

“I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.”

Press then asked Stabenow if she would push for Senate hearings.

"Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?"

Stabenow responded:

"I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep."

Later, the liberal media came to Stabenow's rescue and it was reported that she was "backing down" from that statement.

But how does one "back down" from: "I have already had some discussions with colleagues..."?

By the way, Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, is a co-founder of Air America, the left-wing Al Franken radio network that went bankrupt because the American people already get enough left-wing propaganda from the major television networks, the print media and government controlled PBS and NPR.

Yours In Freedom,

Jeff MazzellaPresidentCENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMwww.cfif.org

__________________________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Dr. Mike S. AdamsProfessor of CriminologyUniversity of North CarolinaWilmingtonMIKE ADAMS is a criminology professor at the UniveADAM is a criminologyf at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhallcsof North Carolina Wilmington and is a reula columnist Monday, February 23, 2009Mike S. Adams :: Townhall.com ColumnistAn Apology to Convenience Store Clerks Everywhereby Mike S. Adams

Over the past several years, I’ve written over 500 nationally published columns. Many of these columns have lampooned academic leftists for their blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. But, regrettably, just last Wednesday, I did something that undermines my credibility in addressing such issues. So in today’s column I wish to offer a sincere apology to my colleagues at UNC-Wilmington, not to mention convenience store clerks all across America.

At about noon on February 18th I was sent an email under the subject line “Osama Bin Laden Found!” Naturally, I was very excited and opened the email without hesitation. The body of the email indicated that a picture of Bin Laden was included in an attachment. I opened the attachment and saw a picture of Bin Laden sitting behind a cash register. The photo had been doctored to portray him as a convenience store clerk wearing a “7-11” vest. It was obviously a joke. Indeed, it was a cruel, racist and highly demeaning joke directed towards Americans of Middle Eastern extraction.

The very fact that I laughed at the attached picture was bad. But then I did something even worse: At 12:38 p.m. (EST), I forwarded the picture to every member of my department.

My poor judgment created a predictable outcry among members of the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. If no members of our faculty were of Middle Eastern descent, the action of forwarding the racist picture would have been tasteless and inappropriate. But the fact that we do have faculty members of Middle Eastern descent – among them junior faculty who are less able to speak out against faculty racism – renders my action in forwarding the picture utterly inexcusable.

So for this I offer an unequivocal apology. My apology extends not just to faculty members I may have offended. It also extends to convenience store clerks everywhere who may have felt they were unjustly connected to terrorism. Finally, it extends to everyone of Middle Eastern descent who may have been offended by my inappropriate actions.

In the past, I have been critical of my university for a number of racist actions, including, but not limited to, the following:

*Printing and distributing a student activity calendar with a picture of a monkey wearing corn rows. This picture made a racist connection between black men and monkeys.

*Printing and disseminating posters of Secretary of State Rice and General Powell enclosed in cages holding bunches of bananas. These pictures, which were distributed by the Women’s Center to advertise an event for a feminist group (The Guerilla Girls), also made a racist connection between blacks and monkeys.

*Hiring a black man (Brent Staples) to give a speech on racial sensitivity after writing a book in which he bragged about chasing white people down the street and screaming into their “bleached out faces.” This was not racist to whites, but to blacks, because Staples did it in the context of faking an intention to rob the whites. This made a racist connection between black men and the violent crime of robbery.

For years, I have been holding myself to a higher standard than the liberal racists at my university. But, as of last week, I have relinquished any right to claim moral superiority or to hold myself out as an enforcer of moral consistency.

I fully expect that someone in our university community, whether of Middle Eastern descent or not, will soon file a charge of hostile environment racial harassment. If I am found guilty of such a charge I will immediately offer my resignation from the faculty of UNC-Wilmington.

I also very deeply regret any harm I have caused to the conservative movement.

I once had a dog named Jake that I liked very much. He was a well-behaved dog. When I asked him to sit, he would sit. When I asked him to shake, he would shake. When I asked him to stay, he would stay. Because he was so eager for praise and approval, it was easy to control his behavior. That old dog was a lot like the liberals who read my columns.

Because I am very good at predicting the behavior of liberals, I did a very risky thing yesterday by taking credit for an email I did not actually send. It was all part of a little experiment on tolerance and diversity, which has yielded results much like I had predicted.

Those who read yesterday’s column read my spoof apology for an email I claimed I had sent to the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. The email, sent under the subject line “Bin Laden Found!”, had a picture attached which showed the terrorist behind a cash register wearing a “7-11” vest. The responses to my apology were predictable. Here are a few of the highlights:

“You are not a conservative, you are a rude and insensitive bigot.”

“You should resign from your position as a professor immediately. Don’t wait for a conviction for hate speech.”

“You are a complete embarrassment to academia.”

“I hope Al Quada [sic] bombs your office.”

“You are an arrogant bigot.”

“I bet you’re not sorry you fraud. You just don’t want to lose your job.”

“What a childish bigot you are. You’ll get what you deserve. Finally.”

Of course, these are not all of the angry emails I got. But they do summarize the general sentiments of my numerous liberal readers – people who come back to my columns constantly because they are addicted to being angry. And now that I’m about to deliver the punch line of my little joke their anger is about to reach unprecedented heights.

For those who haven’t yet figured it out, I was not the person who sent the racially insensitive email to the entire department. It was actually sent by a self-proclaimed liberal and atheist who, get this, teaches a university course in race relations. And, after sending the email to the entire department, no one (myself included) responded with a denunciation. The reasons for the silence are twofold:

1. The lone conservative on the mailing list recognizes that the First Amendment protects speech that is controversial and inflammatory. If the First Amendment was meant to protect speech that is main stream and uncontroversial it would hardly be necessary.

2. The over two dozen liberals on the email list believe in the selective application of the concept of hate speech. Specifically, they only apply it to speakers they hate such as conservatives and Christians and, of course, conservative Christians. They really have no concern for the groups they claim to be protecting from offense. In other words, hate speech is an objectively meaningless concept created by ideological bigots who are incapable of defending their ideas without government intervention. That is why the same people who support the discriminatory application of speech codes also support the “fairness” doctrine.

The whole problem of speech codes could be solved if we could just find a way to make liberals happy. But that would be harder than finding Osama Bin Laden in a convenience store in New Jersey. So I think we should sue the enforcers of these codes when it is necessary to do so. And we should ridicule them even when it isn’t.

____________________

Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetorois not eligible to be President of the United Statesbecause he is not a Natural Born Citizenas required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Fiveof the United States Constitution regardless ofwhere he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago,the moon)because he was not born of TWO PARENTSBOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENSat the time of his birth. His father was a citizen/subjectof Kenya/Great Britain.Check it out:

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com